I see that LU is to have another, much longer trial of the 'stand on both
sides of the escalator' rule at Holborn:

http://railnews.mobi/news/2016/03/10...-stand-on.html

The previous trial confirmed the theory that, at busy times, escalator
throughout was much higher if people stood on both sides. This time,
they're testing how to get the message across.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:52:24 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I see that LU is to have another, much longer trial of the 'stand on both
sides of the escalator' rule at Holborn:

http://railnews.mobi/news/2016/03/10...-stand-on.html

The previous trial confirmed the theory that, at busy times, escalator
throughout was much higher if people stood on both sides. This time,
they're testing how to get the message across.

FTA:

"It may not seem right that you can go quicker by standing still, but our
experiments at Holborn have proved that it can be true"

Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up will
inevitably be delayed.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:52:24 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
I see that LU is to have another, much longer trial of the 'stand on both
sides of the escalator' rule at Holborn:

http://railnews.mobi/news/2016/03/10...-stand-on.html

The previous trial confirmed the theory that, at busy times, escalator
throughout was much higher if people stood on both sides. This time,
they're testing how to get the message across.

FTA:

"It may not seem right that you can go quicker by standing still, but our
experiments at Holborn have proved that it can be true"

Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up will
inevitably be delayed.

It's all about throughput, not maximising the speed of every passenger.
Many more people use the left side of long up escalators if they can stand,
and don't have to climb. This is a long established theory which the
previous trial confirmed. Now the challenge is to get commuters to change
their behaviour on certain escalators at certain times.

In message , at 16:00:08 on Thu, 10 Mar
2016, d remarked:
I see that LU is to have another, much longer trial of the 'stand on both
sides of the escalator' rule at Holborn:

http://railnews.mobi/news/2016/03/10...-stand-on.html

The previous trial confirmed the theory that, at busy times, escalator
throughout was much higher if people stood on both sides. This time,
they're testing how to get the message across.

FTA:

"It may not seem right that you can go quicker by standing still, but our
experiments at Holborn have proved that it can be true"

Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up will
inevitably be delayed.

Sadly not, because they would have been delayed in the bigger queue for
the escalator.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:26:38 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:00:08 on Thu, 10 Mar
2016, d remarked:
I see that LU is to have another, much longer trial of the 'stand on both
sides of the escalator' rule at Holborn:

http://railnews.mobi/news/2016/03/10...s-stand-on.htm


The previous trial confirmed the theory that, at busy times, escalator
throughout was much higher if people stood on both sides. This time,
they're testing how to get the message across.

FTA:

"It may not seem right that you can go quicker by standing still, but our
experiments at Holborn have proved that it can be true"

Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up will
inevitably be delayed.

Sadly not, because they would have been delayed in the bigger queue for
the escalator.

Not as much as they'll have been delayed standing all the way up the long
escalator at Holborn. Besides, often you can walk past all the people waiting
for the right.

--
Spud

In message , at 16:40:44 on Thu, 10 Mar
2016, d remarked:
Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up will
inevitably be delayed.

Sadly not, because they would have been delayed in the bigger queue for
the escalator.

Not as much as they'll have been delayed standing all the way up the long
escalator at Holborn.

TfL's stats would claim otherwise.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:59:13 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:40:44 on Thu, 10 Mar
2016, d remarked:
Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up
will
inevitably be delayed.

Sadly not, because they would have been delayed in the bigger queue for
the escalator.

Not as much as they'll have been delayed standing all the way up the long
escalator at Holborn.

TfL's stats would claim otherwise.

I'm sure they would, but I wouldn't believe them. The *average* speed of
everyone going up no doubt will be faster. But for those of us who arn't
bone idle lard butts it'll almost certainly be slower. Holborn is a long
escalator and there's no way the wait at the bottom can ever be long enough
to make up for standing all the way to the top.

--
Spud

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:40:44 on Thu, 10 Mar
2016, d remarked:
Sorry matey, but it depends who you're talking about. People who would have
stood anyway will probably get up quicker. Those who would have walked up will
inevitably be delayed.

Sadly not, because they would have been delayed in the bigger queue for
the escalator.

Not as much as they'll have been delayed standing all the way up the long
escalator at Holborn.

TfL's stats would claim otherwise.

Do you have a copy or a link to them? My suspcion is that the press office
has confused latency and throughput.

--
Mike Bristow